• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

Can the Federal Government force a business to violate the owners religion?

  • Yes - but only if, like, it's, like, totally anachronistic, and stuff, like, cmon, man, stop whining

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    43
I don't know.

If Traditionally Christian stores are forced to hire homosexuals and transvestites, then shouldn't Muslim stores be forced to sell pork?

Apples to Oranges. Discrimination does not compare to not selling something
 
Last edited:
I don't know.

If Traditionally Christian stores are forced to hire homosexuals and transvestites, then shouldn't Muslim stores be forced to sell pork?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.. Has ANY employer ever asked you about your sexual orientation?
 
I don't know.

If Traditionally Christian stores are forced to hire homosexuals and transvestites, then shouldn't Muslim stores be forced to sell pork?

Who is being forced to hire homosexuals? That's different from being forced to not discriminate.
 
I don't know.

If Traditionally Christian stores are forced to hire homosexuals and transvestites, then shouldn't Muslim stores be forced to sell pork?

Homosexuals and transvestites are not protected and as such do not have to be hired. Its race, age, religion, sex, national origin. Those are the protected classes employers may not discriminate against.
 
Who is being forced to hire homosexuals? That's different from being forced to not discriminate.

Reverse: Who is not being forced to hire homosexuals? That's different from being forced to not reverse discriminate.

oh, wait reverse discrimination doesn't happen.
 
This is ridicules, If a store chooses not to sell something oh well. Either the customers will patronize the store or not. Even stores in the middle of nowhere depend on return customers and subject to failure if there is not enough business. Actually isolated stores are more susceptible to boycotts. And in larger more competitive areas you snooze you loose.

So the question from a business perspective is pointless. But the question from a political stand point is dangerous in nature. The idea that the government should dictate what a private business owner puts on their shelves sounds a tad bit authoritative. Plus there is the religious freedom that our Constitution promises that would need to be walked all over in order to do anything about a merchant refusing to stock pork on their shelves. If laws were enacted to require the sell of pork in all groceries, that law would also open the door for the suppression of other religious activity.

From a liberty point of view we should tar and feather the OP for suggesting that we should persecute people based solely on their religious point of view.
 
Last edited:
Homosexuals and transvestites are not protected and as such do not have to be hired. Its race, age, religion, sex, national origin. Those are the protected classes employers may not discriminate against.

It depends on the state. 21 states have outlawed discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
 
It depends on the state. 21 states have outlawed discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

I am just telling you EEOC guidlines. If a state wants to do something that's another discussion.
 
Apples to Oranges. Discrimination does not compare to not selling something

Who is being forced to hire homosexuals? That's different from being forced to not discriminate.

But it's still a religious business being affected by the unreligious government.

Why should Apostolic/Pentecostal business that sells Biblical material be forced to hire transvestites and homosexuals? You can tell me it's not "forced," yet if a transvestite/homosexual "decides" to apply at that business, that business can't object. Ergo, forced.
 
Reverse: Who is not being forced to hire homosexuals? That's different from being forced to not reverse discriminate.

oh, wait reverse discrimination doesn't happen.


No one is being forced to hire homosexuals, and reverse racism is the opposite of racism. If you mean racism against white people just say so.
 
But it's still a religious business being affected by the unreligious government.

Why should Apostolic/Pentecostal business that sells Biblical material be forced to hire transvestites and homosexuals? You can tell me it's not "forced," yet if a transvestite/homosexual "decides" to apply at that business, that business can't object. Ergo, forced.

They are not forced to hire.
 
But it's still a religious business being affected by the unreligious government.

Why should Apostolic/Pentecostal business that sells Biblical material be forced to hire transvestites and homosexuals? You can tell me it's not "forced," yet if a transvestite/homosexual "decides" to apply at that business, that business can't object. Ergo, forced.

Well, I don't believe that businesses should be compelled to supply a certain product. let's get that out of the way first.

That being said, where exactly in the Bible does it say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to work for a living? And even then, if a homosexual applies for a job at that business, he or she has to be qualified. It's not that you're compelled to force to hire a gay person just because he or she applies.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't believe that businesses should be compelled to supply a certain product. let's get that out of the way first.

That being said, where exactly in the Bible does it say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to work for a living? And even then, if a homosexual applies for a job at that business, he or she has to be qualified. It's not that you're compelled to force to hire a gay person just because he or she applies.

I can reason on the first point.

SB, if a Traditionally Christian business turned down a homosexual/transvestite, you've got an epic news story. If said business turns down a person based on the business's religious beliefs, that person will complain and sue. I never argued that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to work.
 
Last edited:
No one is being forced to hire homosexuals, and reverse racism is the opposite of racism. If you mean racism against white people just say so.

Racism and discrimination are not one in the same, I never implied that it had anything to do with race. That is you not reading the words correctly or you're trollling.
 
Last edited:
Of course they can. Just look at how Obama violated Catholics.
 
I can reason on the first point.

SB, if a Traditionally Christian business turned down a homosexual/transvestite, you've got an epic news story. If said business turns down a person based on the business's beliefs, that person will complain and sue.

Well, I'll put it this way. Social factors come into play here. If a homosexual wants to apply for a job where the business owner or the boss dislikes homosexuals, social (as opposed to legal factors) will probably compel that person to look for employment elsewhere. Now, on the off chance that the individual still wants to work there, yes, he can sue if he can prove discrimination (which btw is very hard to prove).

I never argued that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to work.

What I am arguing is that a Christian hiring a homosexual doesn't violate religious beliefs of any kind. If a Christian turns down an applicant because he is homosexual, it is because he of his personal prejudices, not because hiring that person actually violates any Christian tenet. The Bible may say that homosexuals are an abomination or whatnot, but it doesn't actually say that you can't hire them because of it. So you can't use the "hiring homosexuals violates my religious beliefs" angle.
 
Last edited:
I don't even get what this discussion is about. If a muslim thinks he can make money selling pork and alcohol, he will do that. Just like catholic pharmacists who own their own pharmacy will dispense birth control if it helps them make money. This discussion is idiotic. Now head over to your local liquor store and get a ham sandwich and bud light. Actually the guy that the local 7-11 here is hindu and he sells a ton of beef.
 
What I am arguing is that a Christian hiring a homosexual doesn't violate religious beliefs of any kind. If a Christian turns down an applicant because he is homosexual, it is because he of his personal prejudices, not because hiring that person actually violates any Christian tenet. The Bible may say that homosexuals are an abomination or whatnot, but it doesn't actually say that you can't hire them because of it. So you can't use the "hiring homosexuals violates my religious beliefs" angle.

I don't see how that is. The Bible speaks of shunning homosexuals, so how is hiring a homosexual for fear of being sued "shunning"?
 
I don't see how that is. The Bible speaks of shunning homosexuals, so how is hiring a homosexual for fear of being sued "shunning"?

The Christian commandment is Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. You should read the bible.
 
The Christian commandment is Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. You should read the bible.

Perhaps it is you who should read the Bible, instead of just focusing on one commandment.
 
Perhaps it is you who should read the Bible, instead of just focusing on one commandment.

I am not a Jew living in the bronze age. If one claims to be a Christian it is the command of Christ that matters. That is the sole command of Christ.
 
On the pork issue itself, no, I don't think government should force Muslim businesses to stock pork. However, I also think Christian businesses should be able to hire people based on their religious morals.
 
I am not a Jew living in the bronze age. If one claims to be a Christian it is the command of Christ that matters. That is the sole command of Christ.

Who is talking about a Jew living in the Bronze Age?

You seem to think only the red text in the Bible is acceptable.

You'd be completely wrong.
 
Who is talking about a Jew living in the Bronze Age?

You seem to think only the red text in the Bible is acceptable.

You'd be completely wrong.


The red text is the most important. Followed by the rest of the New Testament. The old testament or Law does not apply to Christians.
 
The red text is the most important. Followed by the rest of the New Testament. The old testament or Law does not apply to Christians.

Jesus quoted and referenced the OT countless times. The OT is the Gospel. The Law was never supposed to save, but serves other purposes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom